1

 October 1, 2010 

BY EMAIL TRANSMISSION

Brian Finneran 

Oregon DEQ 

Air Quality Division 

811 SW Sixth Avenue 

Portland, Oregon 97204 

Email: NewBART4PGE@deq.state.or.us 

RE: NPCA Comments on Proposed 2010 Revisions to Regional Haze Rules 

 Applicable to Boardman Plant. 

Dear Mr. Finneran: 

National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) respectfully submits the following 

comments on the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ) proposed 2010 

revisions to the regional haze rules that address best available retrofit technology (BART) 

and reasonable progress requirements for Portland General Electric Company’s (PGE) 

Boardman coal-fired power plant (Boardman) located in Boardman, Oregon. 

NPCA works to protect and enhance America’s national parks for present and future 

generations. We represent over 325,000 members that care deeply about protecting air 

quality in our national parks including those of the Northwest. We are encouraged by 

DEQ’s revised regional haze proposal and support reductions from the Boardman facility 

that will result in the most effective and prompt restoration of visibility to our national 

parks. We also commend DEQ for appropriately evaluating the cumulative impact of 

Boardman’s pollutant emissions on all 14 Class I areas within its (300 km) airshed. 

I. Background 

In 2008, DEQ proposed BART limits for Boardman that assumed the plant would operate 

at least until 2040. The BART limits were based on the installation and operation of new 

pollution controls at Boardman to reduce visibility impairing nitrogen oxides, sulfur 

dioxide and particulate matter. NPCA submitted comments on DEQ’s proposal on 

January 20, 2009, and those comments are incorporated by reference here 

(ATTACHMENT A). Oregon’s Environmental Quality Commission adopted DEQ’s 

proposed BART regulations for Boardman on June 19, 2009. 

In the spring of 2010, however, PGE submitted a new BART plan to the Environmental 

Quality Division that proposed eliminating the installation of new pollution controls at 
2

Boardman in exchange for the closure of the plant in 2020. On June 17, 2010, the 

Commission rejected PGE’s plan, but directed DEQ to examine other BART options for 

Boardman based on a wider range of closure scenarios. 

On September 1, 2010, DEQ submitted for public review and comment its revised BART 

options for Boardman. DEQ’s 2010 proposed revisions include one “no closure” option 

and three new closure scenarios (closure within 5 years of EPA approval, and closure by 

2018 and 2020) with three attendant BART determinations. PGE is required to choose 

from one of the four options by 2014. 

II. Comments on 2010 Proposed Revisions to Boardman BART Limits 

The one “no closure” and three “closure” options are illustrated in the following table, 

borrowed from DEQ’s 2010 Proposed Rulemaking Announcement. 

NPCA has significant concerns regarding DEQ’s “no closure” option, which are 

described in Section A below. NPCA generally supports the three closure options as 

BART for Boardman, as described in Section B below, as long as DEQ modifies them 
3

after correcting inflated cost estimates and underestimated benefits. Providing for the 

early closure of Boardman should, to the extent Boardman’s retired power output is 

replaced by efficiency gains and less-polluting sources, result in greater visibility, health 

and ecological benefits compared to continued Boardman operation. We therefore 

applaud DEQ’s application of BART that allows the timely retirement of Boardman as 

part of its regional haze compliance plan. 

 A. The No Closure Option. 

The “no closure” BART limits applicable to Boardman, and found at proposed OAR 340-

223-0030 and OAR 340-223-0040 can be summarized as follows: 

NOx Limits

By January 1, 2012, PGE is required to demonstrate compliance with a nitrogen oxide 

(NOx) emission limit of 0.28 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average) and 0.23 lb/MMBtu 

(12 month rolling average) based on the use of new low NOx burners and modified 

overfire air. If PGE demonstrates the above limits cannot be achieved DEQ is given the 

discretion, without further public involvement, to extend the NOx limit compliance date 

to July 1, 2014. To the extent an extension is granted by DEQ, after July 1, 2014 PGE is 

required to meet an emission limit of 0.23 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average based 

on the use of selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR). By January 1, 2018, Boardman is 

required to meet a NOx emission limit of 0.070 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average) based 

on selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technology. 

 

SO2 Limits 

By January 1, 2015, PGE is required to demonstrate compliance with a sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) limit of 0.12 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average), based on the installation and 

operation of semi-dry flue gas scrubbers. 

Particulate Matter Limits 

By January 1, 2015, PGE is required to demonstrate compliance with a particulate matter 

(PM) limit of 0.012 lb/MMBtu (3-hour average), based on the installation and operation 

of pulse jet fabric filter technology. 

 Comments Regarding the No Closure Option

NPCA believes the NOx, SO2 and PM limits set forth above do not reflect the best 

demonstrated system of continuous emission reduction that can be achieved at Boardman 

and thus does not reflect or comply with BART requirements. NPCA therefore urges 

DEQ to significantly strengthen Boardman’s “no closure” option. 

As an initial matter, DEQ’s NOx, SO2 and PM emission limits should not include an 

exclusion of emissions during startup and shutdown. The obligation to meet emission 
4

limits under the Clean Air Act is “continuous.” Moreover, the averaging times for SO2

and NOx are sufficiently long to accommodate any minor emission deviations during 

startup and shutdown, and no startup or shutdown exception is warranted for the PM limit 

because fabric filters are immune to emission variations during these events. 

With respect to the specific emission limits, DEQ’s “no closure” final NOx limit of 0.07 

lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average only reflects a 70% SCR NOx control efficiency 

after combustion controls. This is contrary to the performance record of current SCR 

retrofits and new installations that regularly reduce NOx emissions by 90% or better. 

According to DEQ’s “no closure” BART determination, NOx emissions from Boardman 

after combustion controls are required to meet a limit of at least 0.28 lb/MMBtu on a 30-

day rolling average. The installation and operation of SCR (acknowledged by DEQ to be 

cost effective at $3,190/ton removed) therefore should result in a 90% reduction of that 

emission rate, or 0.028 lb/MMBtu. In other words, DEQ’s final, “no closure” BART 

determination for NOx is over two times too lax. 

DEQ’s “no closure” final SO2 emission limit of 0.12 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling 

average is even farther from what is BART. There is no question that the current 

generation of wet SO2 scrubbers can achieve 95% control efficiency. There also is no 

question that Boardman’s current, uncontrolled SO2 emission rate is 0.61 lb/MMBtu. 

Thus BART for SO2 at Boardman should reflect a 95% reduction of 0.61 lb/MMBtu, or 

.030 lb/MMBtu. DEQ’s proposed SO2 limit of 0.12 lb/MMBtu is therefore four times too 

lax. 

Moreover, even assuming that a semi-dry scrubber represents BART for Boardman, 

emission limits reflecting better than 90% SO2 control have recently been imposed for 

newly constructed power plants burning coal similar to that used at Boardman. The 

Newmont, White Pine and Dry Fork plants, for example, all have SO2 emission limits 

with semi-dry scrubbers that are between 0.065 – 0.070 lb/MMBtu. Because PGE 

employs no SO2 scrubber technology whatsoever, installation of a new scrubber at 

Boardman would be equivalent to the installation of a new scrubber at a new plant. Thus 

an emission limit of no greater than 0.065 lb/MMBtu should be imposed as SO2 BART 

for Boardman. 

 

The wet scrubber option fits well within DEQ’s appropriate $7,300/ton cost effectiveness 

threshold. According to Attachment B to DEQ’s September 1, 2010 revised BART 

Report, over a 20-year lifetime the cost effectiveness of wet scrubbing per ton of SO2

removal is $4,474. The cost of semi-dry scrubbing is even less: $3,285 per ton. Id. To 

the extent PGE is allowed to use semi-dry scrubbing rather than wet, it should be required 

to meet an emission limit as close to what would have been achieved using cost-effective 

wet scrubbing. 

DEQ’s “no closure” particulate matter limit should require compliance to be determined 

by continuous PM CEMs. The current method of determining compliance, one stack test 

no less than once every 5 years, is plainly insufficient to ensure continuous compliance. 
5

 B. The Three Closure Options 

The “closure” BART limits applicable to Boardman, and found at proposed OAR 340-

223-0050 through OAR 340-223-0080, can be summarized as follows: 

Option 1: Closure by December 31, 2020

Option 1 would require PGE to meet (a) a NOx limit of 0.19 on a 30-day rolling average 

basis, an SO2 limit of 0.12 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average basis, and a particulate 

matter limit of 0.012 lb/MMBtu on a 3 hour basis by 2014 and (b) retire the facility by 

2020. The SO2 limit would require the installation of a semi-dry scrubber, and the PM 

limit would require the installation of fabric filters. 

Option 2: Closure by December 31, 2018

Option 2 would require PGE to (a) meet a NOx limit of 0.19 on a 30-day rolling average 

basis by 2014 and (b) retire the facility by 2018. Neither SCR for NOx, or scrubbers for 

SO2, would be required. 

Option 3: Closure within five years of EPA approval

Option 3 would require PGE to (a) install minimal NOx combustion controls to meet a 

NOx emission limit of at least 0.28 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average basis, and (b) 

retire the facility within five years from the date of SIP approval by EPA. 

. Comments Regarding the Three Closure Options

NPCA generally supports the three closure options as BART for Boardman. 

Nevertheless, a number of modifications are warranted as described below. 

Applicable to all options, whether the current regulatory language proposed by DEQ 

would actually result in the “closure” of Boardman is unclear. Each closure option states 

that it only applies to the “Foster-Wheeler boiler” at Boardman. To ensure no other coalfired boiler could be installed at Boardman we request DEQ strike the commercial name 

of the boiler from OAR 340-223-0020 through OAR 340-223-0090 and replace it with 

either “any coal-fired boiler” or “the Boardman coal-fired power plant.” 

Also applicable to all options, DEQ’s regulatory language at OAR 340-223-0050(3) 

should be tightened to ensure ultimate compliance with whatever option is selected. 

First, the “Foster-Wheeler” identification should be stricken as discussed above. Second, 

the regulation should specify that if PGE continues to operate Boardman as a coal-fired 

facility after its selected closure deadline the operating permit for Boardman shall be 

deemed void. Third, to avoid any uncertainty regarding the availability of relief due to 

PGE non-compliance, the regulation should explicitly state that the state, EPA and 

citizens may apply for both injunctive and civil penalty relief. 
6

With respect to Option 1, that requires closure by 2020, we incorporate by reference the 

National Park Service Comments submitted to DEQ on October 1, 2010, including 

specifically NPS’s Low NOx Burner (LNB), Over-fire Air (OFA), and Selective Catalytic 

Reduction (SCR) cost assessment and estimation of visibility benefit. We agree with NPS 

that DEQ and PGE have overestimated the costs of this suite of controls, overestimated 

the number of years it would take to amortize the costs for this grouping of controls and 

underestimated the pollution reduction capabilities and thus visibility benefits they are 

able to achieve. 

When evaluating current vendor pollution control cost estimates and industry reports for 

Option 1 in accordance with EPA’s Control Cost Manual we believe that SCR becomes 

the cost effective technology choice for Boardman. SCR is capable of reducing NOx

emissions by 90%+, and even with NPS’s more conservative assumption of 0.05 

lb/MMBtu or 78% reduction, the benefits still substantially exceed the control 

effectiveness of DEQ’s proposed SNCR option. NPS’s analysis demonstrates that the 

costs of SCR, if operated for more than five years, fall below both DEQ’s $7,300/ton cost 

effectiveness and $10 million/deciview thresholds. The installation of SCR would 

improve the total visibility benefit by 2.6 deciviews. Accordingly, we believe that LNB, 

OFA and SCR is the appropriate NOx BART determination for Option 1. 

With respect to Option 2, that requires closure by 2018, Dry Sorbent Injection systems 

are capable of achieving 90% SO2 reduction efficiency. A 35% SO2 reduction is far too 

lenient a limit and DEQ should require this technology perform to its actual capability. 

With respect to Option 3, that requires closure within five years, NPCA believes that 

DEQ should require additional interim controls that would reduce emissions in the five 

remaining years of operation. The five-year closure option would reduce the remaining 

useful life of the facility, therefore narrowing the control options, but cost-effective 

technologies are available which would provide for additional emission reduction 

benefits. 

Dry Sorbent Injection for Option 3 may well be an appropriate cost effective technology 

choice capable of reducing SO2 emissions in a manner consistent with BART 

requirements. We request that DEQ determine whether Dry Sorbent Injection would be 

cost effective when amortized over the remaining life of the plant. 

With respect to NOx emissions for Option 3, we support National Park Service’s assertion 

that Low NOx Burners, Over-fire Air and Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction is below 

DEQ’s $7300/ton cost effectiveness threshold and should be considered as an interim 

control. 

Finally, we suggest for Option 3 that proposed OAR 340-223-0060(1) be modified to 

include a hard date by which compliance is assured, as set forth in bold below: 
7

Subject to OAR 340-223-0050, the owner or operator of any coal 

fired boiler at the Boardman coal-fired power plant may elect to 

comply with this rule in lieu of compliance with OAR 340-223-

0030 and 340-223-0040 if it ceases operations of the boiler within 

five years of the approval by the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency of the revision to the State of Oregon Clean Air 

Act Implementation Plan that incorporates OAR Chapter 340, 

division 223, but in no event later than May 16, 2016. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. 

 Sincerely, 

 

 Stephanie Kodish 

 Clean Air Counsel 

 National Parks Conservation Association 

 706 Walnut Street, Suite 200 

 Knoxville, TN 37902 

 865-329-2424 

 skodish@npca.org 
1

 January 30, 2009 

BY EMAIL TRANSMISSION

Brian Finneran 

Oregon DEQ 

Air Quality Division 

811 SW Sixth Avenue 

Portland, Oregon 97204 

Fax: (503) 229-5675 

Email: regionalhaze@deq.state.or.us 

Dear Mr. Finneran: 

Environmental Defense Fund and National Parks Conservation Association respectfully 

submit the following comments on the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s 

(DEQ) proposed Regional Haze rulemaking addressing best available retrofit technology 

(BART) and reasonable progress requirements for the Boardman coal-fired power plant 

(Boardman) located in Boardman, Oregon, and operated by Portland General Electric 

Company (PGE). We also appreciate the opportunity to provide brief comments 

regarding the rule amendment proposed by PGE. PGE’s comments present important 

questions that merit rigorous consideration. They also raise material questions that were 

not presented in the State’s proposal. We respectfully ask the State to provide an 

opportunity for comment by the public and the Federal Land Managers on the State’s 

own assessment and evaluation of PGE’s approach in light of a full consideration of the 

relevant BART factors. 

The Boardman plant is solely responsible for 38% of all industrial emissions and 2.7% of 

the entire emissions in Oregon. Boardman’s emissions adversely impact 15 Class I 

airsheds within the states of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. These areas include: Mt. 

Hood Wilderness, Mt. Jefferson Wilderness, Three Sisters Wilderness, Mt. Washington 

Wilderness, Eagle Cap Wilderness, Hells Canyon Wilderness (OR), Strawberry Mountain 

Wilderness, Diamond Peak Wilderness, Mt. Adams Wilderness, Goat Rocks Wilderness, 

Alpine Lake Wilderness, Mt. Rainier National Park, Glacier Peak Wilderness, North 

Cascades National Park, and Hells Canyon (ID). 

BART and reasonable progress requirements were enacted to assure reasonable progress 

to the Clean Air Act’s national goal of preventing future and remedying existing 

impairment of visibility in Class I areas from air pollution. Mount Rainier and North 

Cascades National Parks are but two national treasures that have been compromised from 

haze-causing pollutants. For several weeks each year Boardman reduces visibility in 

Mount Rainier. There are clear days when Mount Rainier itself is hard to distinguish and 

the once guaranteed views of Mt. St. Helens, Mt. Adams, Mt. Hood, and the Olympic 

Mountains from Mount Rainier are more difficult to see. Likewise, vistas from North 

Cascades National Park, including Desolation Peak, the inspiration of great literary works 

Attachment A
2

such as Jack Kerouac’s Desolation Angels, are threatened. These areas are the crown 

jewels of the Pacific Northwest and the nation, drawing millions of visitors annually. To 

protect public health and our country’s invaluable natural treasures for present and future 

generations we encourage DEQ to ensure appropriate and timely clean up of hazecausing pollution. The statutory requirements and human health and environmental 

protections can be carried out through binding provisions that require alternatively 

enforceable BART emission limitations or enforceable closure of the facility. These 

alternatives need to be enforceable, timely and consonant with the statutory protections 

under the law. 

We greatly appreciate the State’s leadership and would sincerely welcome the 

opportunity to discuss these comments with the State, FLMs, PGE, and other interested 

members of the public. 

I. Specific Comments Regarding the BART Determination for Boardman 

DEQ’s Proposed NOx Emission Limits Fail to Reflect BART for NOx

DEQ has proposed as BART for nitrogen oxide (NOx) emission limit of 0.28 lb/MMBtu 

(30-day rolling average) and 0.23 lb/MMBtu (12 month rolling average) based on the use 

of new low NOx burners and modified overfire air or, if necessary, with the use of 

selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) and a corresponding NOx BART emission limit 

of 0.23 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average. The proposed NOx BART emission limit 

and pollution controls fail to reflect the best demonstrated system of continuous emission 

reduction that can be achieved at Boardman. 

A. Lower NOx Emission Rates Can Be Achieved with Ultra Low NOx Burners and 

Overfire Air. 

DEQ’s proposed BART limits fail to comply with the EPA’s presumptive BART limits 

for wall-fired boilers of 0.23 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average. As shown further 

below, the presumptive BART limit on a 30-day average should be readily achievable 

with new state-of-the-art low NOx burners and overfire air. Indeed, even lower NOx 

emission rates are achievable with these basic NOx controls. 

For example, the W.A. Parish Unit 6 facility was retrofitted with DRB-4ZTM ultra low 

NOx burners with interlaced overfire air in 2000, and has achieved post-retrofit NOx 

emissions of 0.17 lb/MMBtu or lower.1

 This unit is very similar to the Boardman 

facility, being an opposed wall-fired 670 MW unit placed into service in 1978 which 

burns Powder River Basin coal.2

 The W.A. Parish facility was emitting NOx at a rate of 

0.40 lb/MMBtu before the retrofit.3 A review of the Clean Air Markets Database NOx 

 

1

 See Bryk, S.A. et al., First Commercial Application of DRB-4ZTM Ultra Low NOx Coal-Fired Burner, 

presented to POWER-GEN International 2000, November 14-16, 2000, Orlando, FL. Included as 

Attachment 1 to this comment letter. 

2 Id.

3 Id. 

Attachment A
3

emissions data for Boardman from 2003-2005 shows Boardman has been achieving 

similar NOx rate as W.A. Parish Unit 6 was before the retrofit – Boardman has been 

achieving an annual average NOx emission rate of 0.41 lb/MMBtu. However, DEQ’s 

consultant, ERG, did not address the low NOx burner retrofit at the W.A. Parish Unit 6 

facility in its BART Report to DEQ, even though the W.A. Parish unit is very comparable 

to the Boardman facility. 

Many other existing coal-fired units are achieving lower NOx emission rates with 

overfire air and low NOx burners. Attached is a spreadsheet with NOx emissions data 

from 2004-2006 that provides numerous examples of wall-fired boilers with low NOx 

burners and overfire air meeting lower NOx emission rates than 0.23-0.28 lb/MMBtu. 

The emissions data presented by DEQ in its BART Report also provides support that 

lower NOx emission rates can be met with new low NOx burners and overfire air. For 

example, the H.W. Pirkey facility, which is a wall-fired, dry bottom boiler of similar 

generating capacity as Boardman is achieving a NOx emission rate of 0.18 lb/MMBtu. 

DEQ Report at 15, Table 12. DEQ discounted this low NOx emission rate by averaging 

all of the NOx emission rates from the seven EGUs selected for review, rather than 

evaluating whether Boardman could meet the lowest emission rate that has been achieved 

in practice. Further, DEQ’s list of EGUs of similar design to Boardman that have low 

NOx burners fails to indicate when the low NOx burners were installed (to know whether 

they reflect current state-of-the-art) and what the required NOx emission limit it. If the 

units are not subject to strict NOx emission limits such as what might be required under a 

best available control technology (BACT) determination, then the pollution controls may 

not be designed or operated to the maximum pollution reduction capacity. Thus, in 

evaluating achievable NOx emission rates with a retrofit of new low NOx burners and 

overfire air, DEQ should have reviewed recent BACT analyses and collected vendor 

information as well as recent retrofits. 

Given that BART is to reflect the best system of continuous emission reduction and given 

the long averaging time of the DEQ proposed BART limits, DEQ has failed to provide a 

reasoned justification for developing a BART emission limit based solely on the average 

of NOx emission rates from 7 EGUs that have low NOx burners. DEQ must evaluate the 

best level of NOx emission reduction achievable at Boardman as part of the BART 

analysis, and vendor and emissions data clearly show that lower NOx emission rates are 

achievable at a facility like Boardman – specifically, emission rates of 0.18 lb/MMBtu or 

lower should be achievable with new ultra low NOx burners and overfire air. 

Thus, while DEQ has indicated it was not sure whether Boardman can meet the proposed 

0.23 lb/MMBtu NOx emission limits with just low NOx burners and modified overfire 

air, it seems quite possible that Boardman could readily meet that limit and even achieve 

lower NOx emissions with ultra low NOx burners and modified overfire air. If PGE and 

DEQ have incorrectly relied on higher emission rates of NOx than what can actually be 

achieved by the proposed low NOx burners and modified overfire air, not only does that 

mean the proposed NOx BART level is too high but it also would make the emission and 

cost estimates for SNCR and SCR invalid. 

Attachment A
4

B. Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction Can Achieve a Greater Degree of NOx 

Control than Assumed in the Boardman NOx BART Analysis. 

DEQ’s proposed BART limit based on SNCR is 0.23 lb/MMBtu (30 day average). This 

reflects a 17% reduction from the worst case expected NOx rate of 0.28 lb/MMBtu with 

new low NOx burners and overfire air. But available, cost-effective measures can 

achieve more meaningful pollution reductions. As stated above, based on available 

emissions and vendor data, Boardman can likely achieve NOx emission rates much lower 

than 0.23 lb/MMBtu with new state-of-the-art low NOx burners and overfire air. As 

noted in the ERG memo, SNCR technology can achieve much higher degrees of NOx 

control, as high as 50-60%.4

 Further, according to ERG’s memo, a vendor of SNCR 

systems has indicated a 25% reduction of NOx emissions is achievable with SNCR at 

Boardman. ERG Memo at 7. Yet, DEQ failed to evaluate any of these levels of control 

with an SNCR system. 

Since Boardman should be able to readily meet the presumptive BART limit of 0.23 

lb/MMBtu with new ultra low NOx burners and overfire air, DEQ should have, at the 

minimum, evaluated the level of control a vendor apparently claimed was achievable at 

Boardman with SNCR – i.e., 25%. That would equate to a BART limit of 0.17 

lb/MMBtu or lower. As discussed above, Boardman should be able to meet a much 

lower NOx level with ultra low NOx burners and overfire air, in the range of 0.17-0.18 

lb/MMBtu. A 25% reduction from this level of NOx emissions, which equates to an 

emission limit of 0.13 – 0.14 lb/MMBtu, should also have been evaluated as BART with 

SNCR. DEQ’s BART analysis is seriously deficient in failing to fully evaluate SNCR, 

especially given that a vendor provided data on what SNCR could achieve at Boardman 

that reflected a much higher degree of emission reduction than assumed by DEQ. 

C. Indeed, BART for Boardman Should Be Based on NOx Emission Limits 

Achievable with Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR). 

DEQ has proposed to require installation of a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system 

not to meet BART requirements, but instead to meet reasonable progress requirements. 

Accordingly, DEQ is allowing PG&E to delay installing an SCR system until 2017, well 

after the BART compliance deadline. 

Based on the information provided in DEQ’s BART Report, ERG’s memo, and other 

readily available information, there is more than sufficient basis for DEQ to require 

installation of SCR along with new low NOx burners and overfire air as necessary to 

meet BART requirements. 

As DEQ has indicated, the Boardman power plant is the largest industrial source of NOx 

in the state. In 2002, Boardman accounted for a full one-third of Oregon’s total NOx 

 

4

 Cite to ERG Memo and EPA NOx control doc that says 40-60% is achievable with SNCR. 

Attachment A
5

emissions from industrial sources in the state.5

 In fact, the Boardman power plant is the 

second largest source of NOx in the Pacific Northwest (including the states of California, 

Oregon, Washington, and Idaho).6

 The Boardman power plant is also the only facility 

that DEQ determined to be BART-eligible and subject to BART. 2008 Oregon Regional 

Haze Plan at 144. Requiring installation and implementation of NOx control 

technologies that are readily available and can secure extensive reductions in NOx 

emissions from Boardman on a level that will not only greatly reduce visibility 

impairment due to NOx pollution, but will also reduce nitrogen and acid deposition as 

well as fine particulate and ozone formation. 

1. The Costs of Installing SCR Were Overestimated. 

DEQ presented cost estimates provided by PG&E for its proposed BART controls and for 

the addition of SCR in Table 15 of the DEQ BART Report (at 19). Specifically, the costs 

in terms of tons of pollutant removed were as follows: 

Technology NOx 

Emission 

Rate, 

lb/MMBtu 

NOx 

Emission 

Reduction, 

tons per year 

Cost 

Effectiveness, 

$/ton/year 

Incremental 

Cost 

Effectiveness, 

$/ton/year 

LNB/MOFA 0.23 4,756 $782 

LNB/MOFA/SNCR 0.23 4,756 $1,496 

SCR 0.07 8,647 $2,666 $4,097 

LNB/MOFA/SCR 0.07 8,647 $3,096 $5,052 

(Table excerpted from Table 15 of DEQ BART Report). 

ERG, DEQ’s consultants that gave an independent review of PG&E’s BART proposal, 

found that PG&E’s cost estimates for SCR were overestimated, by a minimum of 24% 

and “possibly by as much as a factor of two.” June 26, 2008 ERG Technical Memo #2 at 

3, 11, 17. Yet, DEQ relied on PG&E’s cost estimates rather than ERG’s cost analysis. 

DEQ indicated it relied on PG&E’s SCR cost estimates because information from PG&E 

on the boiler modifications that may be needed to effective utilize an SCR system. DEQ 

BART Report at 19. Specifically, PG&E has indicated that the flue gas temperature is 

too high for an SCR, and that a larger lower economizer would need to be installed in the 

Boardman boiler. Id. However, ERG in fact accounted for that in its costs estimates that 

were much lower than PG&E’s. ERG Technical Memo #2 at 16. 

Second, it appears that no party has fully evaluated the necessity of lowering flue gas 

temperature for operation of the SCR or whether there might be other options such as the 

use of a higher temperature SCR catalyst or installation of the SCR in a tail-end or low 

dust configuration. According to PG&E’s documentation provided to DEQ, the 

 

5

 Based on 2002 emissions data for Oregon available on EPA’s AIRData website at 

http://www.epa.gov/air/data/reports.html. 

6

 Based on 2002 emissions data for California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho available on EPA’s 

AIRData website at http://www.epa.gov/air/data/reports.html. 

Attachment A
6

Boardman flue gas temperature is typically less than 840 degrees Fahrenheit the majority 

of the time, with higher temperatures occurring about 3% of the time in a year. See 

PG&E’s March 19, 2008 Responses at Q29-2. The maximum flue gas temperature was 

879 degrees Fahrenheit. Id. While PG&E indicated that the top temperature for effective 

SCR performance is 750 degrees Fahrenheit, PG&E did not obtain any SCR catalyst 

temperature curves from vendors to see if other types of catalysts could be used rather 

than undergoing extensive boiler modifications to lower the gas stream temperature to 

750 degrees F. PG&E’s March 19, 2008 Responses at Q26-Q28-2, Q29-1. The optimal 

temperature range is based on the catalyst, and there have been catalysts developed for 

high temperature operation. Some literature has indicated the optimal gas stream 

temperature for application of SCR in a coal-fired boiler application goes up to 840 

degrees F.7

 Yet, PG&E did not evaluate the different types of catalysts available. 

Further, PG&E failed to evaluate whether other configurations of an SCR could be used 

that would not require replacement of the lower economizer. For example, PG&E did not 

evaluate locating the SCR in a tail-end or low dust configuration. Such an installation 

could readily address this concern regarding the gas stream temperature at the 

economizer and possibly could be more cost effective with fewer layers of catalysts 

needed, less expensive catalysts used, and smaller reactor vessels than in a high dust 

installation.8

 

DEQ’s costs estimates are also improperly inflated because they are based on the SCR 

achieving a NOx emission rate of 0.07 lb/MMBtu when current state-of-the-art SCRs can 

achieve much lower levels of NOx emissions. The 0.07 lb/MMBtu emission rate 

assumed for installation of an SCR with new low NOx burners and overfire air only 

reflects a 70% reduction in NOx due to the SCR, assuming the low NOx burners and 

overfire air only achieve a NOx emission rate of 0.23 lb/MMBtu as assumed by DEQ. 

However, SCR systems can achieve much high levels of NOx removal, as high as 90+% 

NOx removal. Further, as discussed above, it is likely that the Boardman boiler would be 

able to achieve a lower NOx rate with new low NOx burners and overfire air. 

A review of recent SCR retrofits most definitively shows that very high levels of NOx 

removal are being achieved by recent SCR retrofit installations. NOx emission rates less 

than 0.05 lb/MMBtu are routinely achieved, and NOx removal efficiencies are typically 

around 90%.9

 Permitting agencies have required lower NOx limits in recent BACT 

determinations, with many proposed and required BACT limits of 0.05-0.06 lb/MMBtu 

and at least one NOx BACT limit as low as 0.035 lb/MMBtu.10 

 

7

 See, e.g., Tonn, D.P. et al., 2200 MW SCR Installation on New Coal-Fired Project, Presented to Institute 

of Clean Air Companies, ICAC Forum ’98, March 18-20, 1998. Included as an Attachment to this letter. 8

 See January 2009 FGD and DeNox Newsletter, No. 369, Next Generation SCR Choices – High Dust, 

Low Dust, and Tail-End. Included as an Attachment to this letter. 

9

 See Erickson, Clayton A. et al., Selective Catalytic Reduction System Performance and Reliability 

Review, The 2006 MEGA Symposium, Paper # 121. Included as an Attachment to this letter. 

10 The Desert Rock Energy Facility permit requires the facility to achieve, after a NOx optimization period, 

a NOx emission rate of 0.035 lb/MMBtu on a 365 day rolling average and an emission rate of 0.05 

lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average. A copy of the Desert Rock PSD permit is included as an 

Attachment to this letter. See also the National Park Service spreadsheet on BACT limits for New PC 

Power Plants, which is also attached. 

Attachment A
7

Thus, NOx emission limits lower than DEQ’s assumed 0.07 lb/MMBtu emission rate 

could likely be met with SCR and new low NOx burners/overfire air at Boardman. DEQ 

should re-evaluate the cost effectiveness of SCR, low NOx burners, and overfire air 

based on an emission limit that reflects the best system of continuous emission reduction 

at Boardman. 

 

2. The Costs of Installing SCR Are Reasonable.

Without making any modifications to the cost effectiveness calculations (which we think 

are warranted, as discussed above), the cost effectiveness of low NOx burners, overfire 

air and SCR of $3,096/ton/year is actually on par with the cost effectiveness of DEQ’s 

proposal to require a semidry FGD as BART for SO2 with a cost effectiveness of 

$3,055/ton/year (per Table 15 of DEQ BART Report). Given the suite of impacts 

associated with NOx pollution from Boardman on numerous class I areas impacted by the 

Boardman facility, it is illogical for DEQ to find that essentially the same cost per ton of 

SO2 removed is reasonable, but find a similar cost for SCR to be unreasonable for NOx 

BART. Further, because DEQ’s SCR cost estimates are improperly inflated as discussed 

above, it could be that the cost effectiveness of SCR controls is actually lower than the 

cost effectiveness of installing a semi-dry scrubber for SO2 control at Boardman. 

3. The Costs of SCR Combined with a Low NOx Combustion System Were Not 

Considered Unreasonable in a Recent Settlement Between EPA and Salt River 

Project for the Coronado Power Plant in Arizona. 

EPA recently entered into a settlement with the Salt River Project regarding air emission 

reductions at SRP’s Coronado Power Plant in Arizona. See United States of America v. 

Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, Civil Action No. CV 

08-1479-PHX-JAT Consent Decree (Attached). EPA had previously filed a complaint 

alleging that the Coronado plant had been modified without obtaining prior prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) permits. Coronado Consent Decree at 4. The Coronado 

power plant is a 2 unit facility, each unit has a generating capacity of roughly 450 

megawatts, and the boilers for each unit are wall-fired and burn bituminous coal. The 

Coronado Consent Decree requires installation of SCR along with a low NOx combustion 

system at each unit and a NOx emission limit for each unit of 0.08 lb/MMBtu (30 day 

average) be met. Id. at 14. The Consent Decree resolves all civil claims brought by the 

EPA, thus one can presume that the costs of installation of SCR and combustion controls 

were determined by EPA to be reasonable even as a retrofit to an existing facility. Thus, 

the Coronado Consent Decree provides strong evidence that the costs of retrofitting SCR 

to a western coal-fired power plant are reasonable and DEQ must take this Consent 

Decree into consideration in determining whether the costs of SCR installation at 

Boardman are reasonable. 

4. SCR and Low NOx Emission Rates Should Not Be Discounted as Simply a NOx 

SIP Call Control Strategy that is Inapplicable to Western Coal Plants 

Attachment A
8

DEQ states in its BART Report that electric utility boilers in the Western U.S. could not 

achieve 70-90% NOx reductions and NOx emission rates of 0.05 lb/MMBtu that 

numerous electric utility boilers have achieved with SCR retrofits in the eastern and 

midwestern U.S. See DEQ BART Report at 17. DEQ seems to imply in its BART 

Report that SCR retrofits and low levels of NOx emissions are only reasonable in areas 

subject to the NOx SIP call and the Clean Air Interstate Rule. DEQ seems to rely on the 

assumption that, because many of the SCR retrofits are only operated during the ozone 

season, the low levels of NOx emissions would not be achievable on a year round basis. 

This is misplaced and DEQ should not assume that, simply because there have not been 

many SCR retrofits in the West, existing coal-fired utility boilers can’t meet those same 

levels of control for reasonable costs. 

The Coronado Consent Decree, in requiring SCR retrofits on two existing units, provides 

a compelling example of this fact. It is also important to note that every new proposed 

coal-fired power plant that will be utilizing a pulverized coal-fired boiler has proposed or 

been required to install SCR to meet BACT requirements. As the attached National Park 

Service spreadsheet on NOx BACT controls for new pulverized coal units, there are 

numerous recent proposed PSD permits for western facilities with NOx limits of 0.05 

lb/MMBtu or lower, such as the Desert Rock limit of 0.039 lb/MMBtu which we 

discussed above. 

Further, western states and EPA are requiring evaluation of SCR as BART at existing 

coal-fired power plants. We believe that limits based on SCR are appropriate at other 

coal plants in the West, besides Boardman. We plan to respectfully request EPA to 

require SCR for BART for the Navajo Generating Station and the Four Corners Power 

Plant, both located in the Four Corners region of the Southwest. We believe Boardman 

should adopt SCR as BART along with other plants in the West. 

5. The Significant Improvements in Visibility Due to SCR Installation at Boardman 

Must Be Given Strong Consideration in Selecting BART for Boardman 

SCR should be considered as BART for Boardman due to the significant impact that NOx 

emissions have on visibility impairment in the region. Nitrates are a source of visibility 

impairment in the Class I areas of Oregon and western Idaho. 2008 Oregon Regional 

Haze Plan at 65. This is especially true for the Class I areas of Eastern Oregon and 

Western Idaho. Specifically, on the 20% worst visibility days, nitrate is a major 

component of visibility impairment in the Hells Canyon, Strawberry Mountain, and Eagle 

Cap wilderness areas. 2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan at 66. DEQ attributes much of 

the nitrate component to the Boardman power plant. Id. at 66, 75. At the Hells Canyon 

Wilderness Area, nitrates are an even greater portion of the visibility impairing pollution 

than the eastern Oregon Class I areas, and Boardman is considered by DEQ to be “the 

largest contributor.” Id. at 77. This data greatly underscores the need to aggressively 

control NOx at Boardman to address its contribution to visibility impairment, especially 

in the eastern Oregon and western Idaho Class I areas. 

Attachment A
9

DEQ’s modeling shows that the “Phase 2” controls of adding an SCR to Boardman and 

reducing NOx levels down to 0.07 lb/MMBtu will greatly reduce Boardman’s visibility 

impacts in all Class I areas affected by Boardman. For example, the visibility impacts 

(98th percentile) due to Boardman at Mt. Hood wilderness area will change from 2.5 

deciviews (dv) with the installation of DEQ’s proposed BART controls down to 1.0 dv 

with the installation of SCR. DEQ BART Report at iii. Thus, the addition of SCR at 

Boardman results in an additional 60% improvement in visibility impairment at Mt. 

Hood. The total visibility impacts due to Boardman at all Class I areas (i.e., the sum of 

the 98th percentile dv impact for all Class I areas) is estimated to change from 13.8 dv 

with the implementation of DEQ’s proposed BART controls at Boardman down to 5.5 dv 

with the installation of SCR – a 60% improvement. Id. The Boardman facility is 

currently estimated to cause a greater than 1.0 dv impact in 14 Class I areas. With the 

addition of DEQ’s proposed BART controls, the number of Class I areas with a 1.0 dv 

impact or greater caused by Boardman would drop to 6. However, with the addition of 

SCR, Boardman would not cause greater than a 1.0 dv impact in any of the Class I areas 

currently being impacted by 1.0 dv or more by the facility. Appendix D to 2008 Oregon 

Regional Haze Plan at D-49. The Class I areas at which Boardman would cause a just 

noticeable change of 0.5 dv would decrease from 34 Class I areas with DEQ’s proposed 

BART controls all the way down to 7 Class I areas once SCR is installed. Id. at D-49. 

The DEQ 2008 Regional Haze Plan and Appendix D are replete with modeling analyses 

showing the very significant benefit that installation of SCR will have on the region’s 

Class I areas. 

Not only will the installation of SCR greatly improve visibility at the Class I areas in the 

region, it will also significantly improvement visibility in the Columbia River Gorge 

National Scenic Area. DEQ’s modeling shows that with installation of BART controls at 

Boardman, the number of days per year with at least a 1.0 dv impact by Boardman at the 

Columbia River Gorge will change from 53 to 34 and, with the installation of SCR at 

Boardman, the number of days per year with at least a 1.0 dv impact by Boardman will 

drop down to 3. DEQ BART Report at iii. 

Thus, DEQ’s modeling greatly supports SCR with new low NOx burners and overfire air 

as reflective of BART for Boardman, given the significant degree of improvement in 

visibility that will result in the numerous Class I areas currently being impacted by 

Boardman. 

6. Installation of SCR at Boardman as BART Will Significantly Address Other Air 

Quality Related Impacts in the Region. 

Other air quality related impacts in the region will also significantly improve as a result 

of installation of SCR at Boardman as well. NOx emissions can contribute to excess 

nitrogen in ecosystems, which can alter the chemical balance of the soils and waterbodies 

with serious consequences for plant and animal life. DEQ’s modeling demonstrates that 

nitrogen deposition in Class I areas will be significantly reduced as a result of installation 

of SCR at Boardman. See Appendix D to 2008 DEQ Regional Haze Plan, at D-53. In 

fact, it appears that maximum nitrogen deposition in Class I areas will only decrease from 

Attachment A
10

currently levels by roughly 25% with DEQ’s proposed BART limits but, with the 

installation of SCR at Boardman, nitrogen deposition would decrease from current levels 

by roughly 85%. Id. Currently, Boardman’s modeled contribution to nitrogen deposition 

in Class I areas significantly exceeds the National Park Service’s Deposition Analysis 

Threshold of 0.005 kilogram per hectare per year (kg/ha yr). In fact, Boardman’s 

maximum nitrogen deposition is estimated to be approximately 0.052 kg/ha/yr, which is 

ten times the National Park Service’s deposition analysis threshold. Id. With the 

installation of SCR, Boardman’s contribution to nitrogen deposition in affected Class I 

areas and in the Columnbia River Gorge will drop to levels very close to the 0.005 

kg/ha/yr deposition analysis threshold. 

With lower NOx emissions from Boardman, that would also decrease nitrate deposition, 

which is be a major source of acidification of lakes and streams. According to National 

Park Service data, nitrate in precipation has been on the rise in the Pacific Northwest 

parks over the past ten years.11 Thus, reducing NOx from the Boardman facility with 

state of the art controls could help to reverse this trend. 

For all of the above reasons, DEQ must require installation of SCR and new low NOx 

burners with overfire air as BART for the Boardman facility and set a NOx BART 

emission limit reflective of the capabilities of this technology which would be absolutely 

no higher than the 0.07 lb/MMBtu NOx emission limit assumed by DEQ as achievable 

with this NOx pollution control system. 

DEQ’s Proposed SO2 Emission Limits Fail to Reflect BART for SO2

DEQ has proposed an SO2 BART limit for Boardman of 0.12 lb/MMBtu (30 day rolling 

average) based on use of a semi-dry flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system. DEQ BART 

Report at ii. However, the proposed SO2 emission limit fails to reflect the emissions rate 

that the best system of continuous emission reduction can achieve at the Boardman 

facility. 

A. A Wet Scrubber Can Achieve Much Higher Levels of SO2 Control and Much 

Lower SO2 Limits than Assumed in DEQ’s BART Analysis. 

DEQ assumed an SO2 emission rate of 0.09 lb/MMBtu with a wet scrubber installed at 

Boardman. DEQ BART Report at 13. This appears to be based on DEQ’s evaluation of 

actual emission rates at other western coal-fired power plants. DEQ BART Report at 15. 

However, the achievable SO2 emission rate with a wet (or a dry) scrubber is based on the 

coal sulfur content and uncontrolled SO2 emission rate of the boiler and also on the 

design of the scrubber. So, DEQ’s evaluation of the SO2 emission rates achieved at 

existing units in the West is can’t serve as a sufficient basis to define an achievable SO2 

limit with a wet scrubber at Boardman without an evaluation of the coal sulfur content 

and uncontrolled SO2 emission rate of those units. Further, if the units evaluated are not 

subject to a requirement to operate the wet scrubber to the best level of continuous 

 

11 See National Park Service 1993-2002 Trends Maps, included as an Attachment to this letter. 

Attachment A
11

emission reduction, then the scrubbers at those units may not be designed or operated to 

meet what is actually achievable with a wet scrubber at Boardman. 

A new wet scrubber retrofit at Boardman should be able to meet the same levels of 

control as new wet scrubbers that are proposed for new coal-fired power plants. Thus, 

DEQ should have conducted a review of recent proposed and final BACT determinations 

as part of assessing the emission rate that could be achieved with a wet scrubber at 

Boardman. A new wet scrubber should be able to achieve at least 95% SO2 removal 

even on low sulfur Powder River Basin coal. There have been several proposed coalfired power plants burning low sulfur Powder River Basin coal that have proposed to use 

wet scrubbers to meet PSD requirements, including the proposed Ely Energy Center and 

the proposed Toquop power plant in Nevada and the proposed Big Stone II facility in 

South Dakota. The state of Nevada proposed a SO2 limit for both the Ely Energy Center 

and the Toquop power plant of 0.06 lb/MMBtu on a 24-hr basis.12 The proponents of the 

Big Stone II facility claim the wet scrubber will be designed to meet at least 95% control 

with Powder River Basin coal.13

The current uncontrolled SO2 emission rate exiting the boiler at Boardman is 0.61 

according to DEQ. DEQ BART Report at 25. PG&E has indicated that the uncontrolled 

SO2 emission rate at Boardman might go as high as 1.2 to 2.49 lb/MMBtu. PG&E’s 

March 24, 2008 Response to Comments at Q2-Q5_Q7_-8-11. This is significantly 

higher than the current baseline uncontrolled SO2 emission rate of 0.61 lb/MMBtu and 

such an increase in sulfur content of coal could greatly override the visibility 

improvements that will be observed with DEQ’s proposed BART controls for Boardman. 

Further, lower sulfur coal is still readily available from the Powder River Basin. DEQ 

should not determine potential BART emission rates based on worst case coal 

assumptions that have never occurred at Boardman in the past. The purpose of BART is 

to reduce emissions from current levels to improve visibility, and that purpose will be 

ignored if DEQ sets BART limits based on what coal Boardman might utilize in the 

future. Instead, DEQ should set a BART limit based on the coal Boardman is currently 

and has been utilizing for quite some time and based on the SO2 removal efficiencies of 

the control systems being evaluated. 

The proposed BACT emission limits for the Toquop and Ely power plants provide very 

relevant data for DEQ to propose a BART limit reflective of wet scrubbers. When a PSD 

permit applicant proposes an emission limit as BACT, such a proposal is made only after 

careful evaluation of the capabilities of the pollution control system with vendors because 

the permit applicants have to be able to ensure they can comply with a BACT limit that 

they propose to a permitting agency, as it will ultimately become an enforceable 

requirement. An SO2 emission limit of 0.06 lb/MMBtu based on these two proposed 

BACT limits would be readily achievable with a wet scrubber at the Boardman facility. 

A 0.06 lb/MMBtu emission limit reflects only 90% removal of SO2 from the coal that is 

 

12 A copy of the proposed PSD permits for the Ely Energy Center and Toquop power plant are attached. 

13 Testimony of Mark Rolfes, Otter Tail Power Company’s project manager for Big Stone II, at the 

Contested Case Hearing for the Big Stone II PSD and Big Stone Title V permits, Pierre, South Dakota, 

August 20, 2008. 

Attachment A
12

currenty being utilized at Boardman, and 90% removal is readily achievable at a wet 

scrubber even with low sulfur coal. 

Further, such an emission rate is being achieved in practice at coal-fired power plants that 

are burning lower sulfur coal and are equipped with wet scrubbers. Based on data 

presented in DEQ’s BART Report, several units are achieving SO2 emission rates of 0.06 

lb/MMBtu including Craig Units 1 and 2, Bonanza, Intermountain Power Units 1 and 2, 

and Centralia Units 1 and 2. Table 12 of DEQ BART Report (at pp. 15-16). 

Thus, DEQ should have evaluated the cost effectiveness of a wet scrubber based on a 

0.06 lb/MMBtu SO2 emission rate or lower. Such an analysis would greatly decrease the 

costs per ton of a wet scrubber such that DEQ might have found the costs to be 

reasonable. Further, DEQ should evaluate the visibility and SO2 related improvements 

as a result of an SO2 emission limit of 0.06 lb/MMBtu with a wet scrubber as compared 

to DEQ’s presumed 0.09 lb/MMBtu SO2 emission rate with a wet scrubber. 

B. A SemiDry Scrubber Can Achieve Much Higher Levels of SO2 Control and 

Much Lower SO2 Emission Rates than Assumed in DEQ’s BART Analysis. 

DEQ assumed an SO2 emission rate of 0.12 lb/MMBtu with a semidry scrubber installed 

at Boardman. DEQ BART Report at 13. This appears to be based on DEQ’s evaluation 

of actual emission rates at other western coal-fired power plants. DEQ BART Report at 

15. However, the achievable SO2 emission rate with a dry scrubber is based on the coal 

sulfur content and uncontrolled SO2 emission rate of the boiler and also on the design of 

the scrubber. So, DEQ’s evaluation of the SO2 emission rates achieved at existing units 

in the West is can’t serve as a sufficient basis to define an achievable SO2 limit with a 

dry scrubber at Boardman without an evaluation of the coal sulfur content and 

uncontrolled SO2 emission rate of those units. Further, if the units evaluated are not 

subject to a requirement to operate the dry scrubber to the best level of continuous 

emission reduction, then the scrubbers at those units may not be designed or operated to 

meet what is actually achievable with a dry scrubber at Boardman. 

A new dry scrubber retrofit at Boardman should be able to meet the same levels of 

control as new dry scrubbers that are proposed for new coal-fired power plants. Thus, 

DEQ should have conducted a review of recent proposed and final BACT determinations 

as part of assessing the emission rate that could be achieved with a wet scrubber at 

Boardman. A new dry scrubber should be able to achieve, at the minimum, 90% SO2 

removal even on low sulfur Powder River Basin coal.14 There have been several 

proposed coal-fired power plants burning low sulfur Powder River Basin coal that have 

proposed to use dry scrubbers to meet PSD requirements and that are subject to much 

lower SO2 BACT limits than 0.12 lb/MMBtu, including the Newmont Nevada TS power 

plant, the proposed White Pine power plant, and the proposed Dry Fork power plant. The 

Newmont Nevada power plant has a much lower SO2 emission limit required as BACT of 

 

14 See, e.g., EPA’s proposed revisions to the New Source Performance Standards for Boilers in which EPA 

stated new dry scrubbers can generally achieve greater than 90% SO2 removal. 70 Fed.Reg. 9711 

(February 28, 2005). 

Attachment A
13

0.065 lb/MMBtu on a 24-hour averaging time, along with a SO2 removal efficiency 

requirement of 91 percent, when combusting coal with less than 0.45 percent sulfur.15 

This facility is currently being constructed. The State of Nevada has proposed a PSD 

permit for the White Pine power plant with an SO2 emission limit of 0.065 lb/MMBtu 

(24-hour average) and a minimum 91% SO2 removal requirement when combusting coal 

with sulfur content less than 0.45%, and a 0.090 lb/MMBtu (24-hour average) SO2 limit 

and a minimum 95% SO2 removal requirement when combusting coal with sulfur 

content equal to or greater than 0.45% sulfur.16 The proposed Dry Fork power plant in 

Wyoming is subject to an SO2 BACT limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu on a 12 month rolling 

average basis. 

Thus, DEQ should have assumed a dry scrubber could achieve an emission rate reflective 

of 90-95% SO2 removal. That would equate to an emission rate based on current coal of 

no higher than 0.060 lb/MMBtu. Such a limit on a long averaging time such as 30 day or 

365 day rolling would be similar to the 0.065 lb/MMBtu So2 emission rates that have 

been required as BACT for similar facilities using dry scrubbers as discussed above. 

While PG&E has indicated that it may burn much higher sulfur coal in the future, DEQ 

should not determine potential BART emission rates based on worst case coal 

assumptions that have never occurred at Boardman in the past. The purpose of BART is 

to reduce emissions from current levels to improve visibility, and that purpose will be 

ignored if DEQ sets BART limits based on what coal Boardman might utilize in the 

future. Instead, DEQ should set a BART limit based on the coal Boardman is currently 

and has been utilizing for quite some time and based on the SO2 removal efficiencies of 

the control systems being evaluated. 

DEQ’s Proposed PM10 Emission Limits Fail to Reflect BART for PM10

DEQ has proposed PM10 BART limit for Boardman of 0.012 lb/MMBtu (3 hour 

average) based on use of a fabric filter baghouse. DEQ BART Report at ii. However, the 

proposed PM10 emission limit fails to reflect the emissions rate that the best system of 

continuous emission reduction can achieve at the Boardman facility. 

A new fabric filter retrofit at Boardman should be able to meet the same levels of control 

as new fabric filters that are proposed for new coal-fired power plants. Thus, DEQ 

should have conducted a review of recent proposed and final BACT determinations as 

part of assessing the emission rate that could be achieved with a fabric filter at Boardman. 

There have been several PM10 BACT limits based on fabric filter baghouses that are 

lower than 0.012 lb/MMBtu including the Desert Rock permit, the proposed Ely Energy 

Center and Toquop permits, and the Two Elk permit. All of these permits set filterable 

PM10 BACT limits at 0.010 lb/MMBtu. 

 

15 See Newmont Nevada permit, attached. 

16 See proposed PSD permit for White Pine Energy Associates, attached. 

Attachment A
14

In addition, lower filterable PM10 emission rates are being achieved in practice. For 

example, Craig Unit #2 which was retrofitted with a baghouse is achieving filterable 

PM10 emission rates of 0.005 lb/MMBtu.17

Thus, a PM10 BART limit for Boardman of 0.010 lb/MMBtu is more reflective of the 

best continuous system of PM10 emission reduction that can be achieved at the 

Boardman facility, and DEQ should impose a BART limit no higher than 0.010 

lb/MMBtu for PM10. 

III. In Light of Claims of Past Illegal Modifications, BART Should Be Equivalent to 

BACT. 

In September 2008, a coalition of environmental groups files a complaint against PG&E 

for, among other things, improper modifications made without obtaining a PSD permit 

and meeting BACT. DEQ should take these claims into account when deciding the level 

of control and pollution control equipment to satisfy BART requirements, since PG&E 

could ultimately be required to meet BACT requirements at the Boardman facility. 

II. Shutdown Rule Amendment Proposals from PG&E 

The shutdown alternative proposals from PG&E are important developments in 

the BART rulemaking and merit further consideration. However, PG&E’s 

proposal does not contain a robust consideration and analysis of relevant statutory 

factors or provide sufficient opportunity for public input. A shut down alternative 

BART proposal must include a full discussion of the BART factors, demonstrate 

in a reasoned way that a decision to shutdown would comply in a timely fashion 

with BART and the Regional Haze Rule, and provide opportunity for public 

comment. Although we recognize PG&E’s proposal includes some discussion of 

BART factors, most particularly the “remaining useful life” factor, a more 

complete analysis and weighing of these factors must be conducted by DEQ 

before a BART or Reasonable Progress is presented for public comment. In order 

to provide meaningful comment it is critical that the public has the benefit of 

transparent analysis by DEQ and is notified of Federal Land Managers (FLM) 

comments regarding the proposal as well as DEQ’s response to FLM comments. 

See 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(i)(2)(3) (requiring states to describe how they address 

comments received by the Federal Land Managers). 

Although the BART guidelines do contemplate allowing flexibility to choose 

between shut down and continued operation, PGE’s shut down proposal lacks 

essential information, and cannot be evaluated to determine whether it is 

consistent with the guidelines’ stated intent to avoid creating a loophole that 

would allow for delays in emission reductions beyond the BART deadline. See

40 C.F.R. pt. 51 App. Y § IV.D.4.k.3; see also 70 Fed. Reg. 39,104, 39,127 (July 

6, 2005) (“the option for providing flexibility would not create a loophole for 

 

17 See attached 2004 PM10 test results for Craig Unit #2. 

Attachment A
15

sources”). We note that the Clean Air Act requires sources to install and operate 

BART “as expeditiously as practicable,” which must be “in no event later than 

five years after the date of approval” of the regional haze SIP. 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7491(b)(2)(A), (g)(4). 

Comments submitted by the Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center, on behalf 

of Sierra Club, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, Friends of the 

Columbia Gorge, Columbia Riverkeeper, and Hells Canyon Preservation Council 

(collectively, “the Coalition”), also suggest an alternative to DEQ’s proposed 

BART rule that includes shutdown of Boardman to achieve necessary pollution 

reductions to improve visibility in the region. The Coalition’s alternative, which 

includes more stringent emissions reductions and a much shorter timeline for 

shutdown, includes a discussion of how shutdown could meet the BART 

requirements. The Coalition’s proposal is supported by a demonstration of the 

pollution reduction that could be achieved if Boardman shut down in 2016, rather 

than in 2029 as proposed by PGE. 

Time is critical as other states are relying on reductions in emissions from the 

Boardman plant as they develop their long term strategy and reasonable progress 

goals for Class I areas located within their state. Indeed, other states are required 

to consult with Oregon if a Class I area located in that state is affected by the 

emissions from the Boardman plant. See 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(d)(1)(iv). Oregon is 

affirmatively required to consult with those other states to develop coordinated 

emissions strategies. Id. § 51.308(d)(3)(i). As noted Oregon Regional Haze Plan, 

emissions from Boardman cause or contribute to visibility impairment in 

mandatory Class I areas outside of Oregon. 2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan at 

65. If DEQ were to adopt the shutdown alternatives, it must articulate how 

regional haze goals would be met in the first and second planning periods and be 

factored into reasonable progress goals. 

Boardman’s future emissions will have direct harmful effects on human health 

and the environment in Oregon, and will impact visibility in numerous Class I 

areas in Oregon and in other states unless appropriate action is taken during the 

BART process. PGE’s proposal delays shut down or meaningful control beyond 

the required BART deadline. If shutdown were to occur within five years of SIP 

approval, we believe this would clearly satisfy BART. The Coalition’s proposed 

shut down timeframe may be the best way to achieve BART. We respectfully ask 

DEQ to fully analyze PG&E’s proposal for consideration by the FLM and the 

public, and to carry out an evaluation of the required statutory factors. The 

State’s leadership will ensure transparency and an informed and reasoned 

decision-making process on a matter of enormous public interest. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. 

Attachment A
16

Sincerely, 

 Kevin Lynch 

 Environmental Defense Fund 

 2334 N. Broadway 

 Boulder, CO 80304 

 (303) 447-7200 

 klynch@edf.org 

 Stephanie Kodish 

 Clean Air Counsel 

 National Parks Conservation Association 

 706 Walnut Street, Suite 200 

 Knoxville, TN 37902 

 865-329-2424 

 skodish@npca.org 

Attachment A